Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    The argument from supersubstantivalism supports No Interp... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The argument from supersubstantivalism supports No Interpenetration only for material objects, not for entities of any kind

    Modality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Supersubstantivalism, as defended by Sider, identifies material objects with spacetime regions via exact location, exploiting the unique persistence conditions of matter.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-material entities like universals lack the persistence conditions that ground the region-identity thesis, so supersubstantivalism's ontological commitments do not extend to them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without the identity claim, the mereological structure of regions cannot generate No Interpenetration constraints for non-material entities, leaving interpenetration open.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Armstrong's immanent universals can be wholly present at multiple spatially discontinuous locations simultaneously, a feature incompatible with the region-identity central to supersubstantivalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any entity whose location conditions resist the region-identity thesis falls outside the scope of the supersubstantivalist argument, and universals paradigmatically resist it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, the argument from supersubstantivalism has restricted scope by its own structural presuppositions, applying only where region-identity is defensible, i.e., for material objects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Supersubstantivalism entails that disjoint material objects cannot have overlapping exact locations
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Supersubstantivalism leaves open the possibility that universals or tropes are exactly located at regions without being identical to them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Disjoint entities that are not material objects might have overlapping exact locations under supersubstantivalism
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Modality & Possibility

    Related

    Any entity whose location conditions resist the region-identity thesis falls out...Armstrong's immanent universals can be wholly present at multiple spatially disc...Disjoint entities that are not material objects might have overlapping exact loc...Non-material entities like universals lack the persistence conditions that groun...
    +5 moreShow less
    Supersubstantivalism entails that disjoint material objects cannot have overlapp...Supersubstantivalism leaves open the possibility that universals or tropes are e...Supersubstantivalism, as defended by Sider, identifies material objects with spa...Therefore, the argument from supersubstantivalism has restricted scope by its ow...Without the identity claim, the mereological structure of regions cannot generat...

    Similar

    Disjoint entities that are not material objects might have overlapping...85%Kim conceded that global supervenience fails to entail strong superven...73%Global supervenience does not entail strong supervenience73%It is reasonable to think fundamentality physicalism entails superveni...72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: location-mereology
    View source passageHide passage
    This gives us an argument for (2), the version of No Interpenetration restricted to material objects. (However, (2) conflicts with the possibility of Sanford's interpenetrating blocks, so the argument will be controversial.) But the argument does not give us an argument for No Interpenetration. For it wouldn't follow that it is impossible for there to be disjoint entities of any kind to have overlapping exact locations. Supersubstantivalism, as stated above, leaves open the possibility that ther
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit